SB 2860 revises Mississippi’s public procurement laws for construction manager at risk (CMAR) projects, with the main change focused on institutions of higher learning and their related entities. The bill keeps the existing CMAR framework—qualifications-based selection, independent design review, public notice, and a guaranteed maximum price structure—but creates a separate procurement path for Mississippi universities and affiliated entities. Under that new path, the construction manager may solicit proposals from contractors and vendors without using the standard public bid process in Section 31-7-13 for the various scopes of work on the project.
For higher education CMAR projects, the construction manager may choose preferred contractors or vendors based on qualifications and other criteria, including cost, experience, financial capacity, workload, safety record, litigation history, personnel, and schedule capability. The bill also delays the requirement that the construction manager submit a guaranteed maximum price until after proposals are received and completed drawings/specifications are available, and it expressly allows the construction manager or its affiliates to self-perform work if the proposal is reviewed and found fair and reasonable. The bill applies only to CMAR procurements for existing or future institutions of higher learning, their related entities, joint ventures, or subsidiaries governed by or connected to those institutions.
The bill also brings forward Section 31-7-13, Mississippi’s general public purchasing statute, which governs bidding for commodities, construction, rentals, and numerous exceptions. That section remains largely intact, but the new higher-education CMAR subsection operates in lieu of the ordinary subcontractor bidding rules for those projects. The broader procurement code continues to require competitive bidding, public notice, and documentation for most state and local purchases, while preserving many existing exceptions for emergencies, hospitals, cooperative purchasing, single-source items, and other specialized procurements.
The overall sentiment appears favorable and pragmatic, as reflected in the bill’s strong bipartisan passage in both chambers. The Senate passed the bill 42-9, and the House passed it 116-0 as amended, suggesting broad agreement that the measure provides needed flexibility for large university construction projects. The bill’s title and committee assignment to Accountability, Efficiency, and Transparency indicate that it was framed as a procurement modernization measure rather than a wholesale rollback of bidding safeguards.
The main point of contention is the reduced use of the public bid process for higher education CMAR projects. Supporters likely view the change as a way to speed delivery, improve project management, and allow more market-responsive contractor selection on large, complex projects. Potential critics would focus on transparency, competition, and the risk that allowing construction managers to select contractors and self-perform work could weaken traditional safeguards against favoritism or inflated costs. The bill attempts to address those concerns by retaining notice, qualifications-based criteria, written justification, independent professional oversight, and public record requirements.
SB 2860 amends Section 31-7-13.2 to create a special procurement procedure for CMAR projects involving Mississippi institutions of higher learning and related entities, allowing those projects to bypass the ordinary public bid process for contractor and vendor selection. It also preserves and reprints Section 31-7-13, the state’s general procurement statute, which continues to govern most public purchases and construction contracts statewide. The practical effect is to carve out a more flexible procurement pathway for university-related construction while leaving the broader competitive bidding framework in place for other agencies and governing authorities.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong support and little visible opposition in the legislative process. It passed the Senate 42-9 and the House 116-0 as amended, indicating that most lawmakers viewed it as a reasonable procurement adjustment for higher education construction projects. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into floor debate, but the voting margins suggest the measure was broadly accepted as a targeted efficiency and project-delivery reform.
The central controversy is whether university CMAR projects should be allowed to depart from the standard public bid process. Supporters likely argue that large campus projects need faster, more specialized procurement methods and that CMAR selection based on qualifications and negotiated pricing can improve outcomes. Opponents or skeptics would likely worry that the bill reduces transparency and competition by letting construction managers choose contractors and vendors, including affiliated self-performing work, without the usual public bidding safeguards. The bill responds to those concerns by requiring published criteria, advance notice, written evaluations, independent architectural or engineering oversight, and public record retention.